If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sorry, but his work has been discredited. Except for Elhayk, no other study has found Jewish origins outside of Israel- see Wikipedia on Jewish Genetics. Behar and others have noted serious flaws in the research design of his earlier study. Just check Eurogenes spreadsheet at Gedmatch. Ashkenazis have a much larger East Med (Levantine) component than a West Asia component. DNA Land also found an Ashkenazi component related to the Levant.

Comment

Sorry, but his work has been discredited. Except for Elhaik, no other study has found Jewish origins outside of Israel- see Wikipedia on Jewish Genetics. Behar and others have noted serious flaws in the research design of his earlier study. Just check Eurogenes spreadsheet at Gedmatch. Ashkenazis have a much larger East Med (Levantine) component than a West Asia component. DNA Land also found an Ashkenazi component related to the Levant.

Comment

Sorry, but his work has been discredited. Except for Elhaik, no other study has found Jewish origins outside of Israel- see Wikipedia on Jewish Genetics. Behar and others have noted serious flaws in the research design of his earlier study. Just check Eurogenes spreadsheet at Gedmatch. Ashkenazis have a much larger East Med (Levantine) component than a West Asia component. DNA Land also found an Ashkenazi component related to the Levant.

I wish I could see Elhaik's research paper, but it apparently fails to note that for the past thousand years, 'Ashkenazi' has been used figuratively rather than literally. It is true that the original Ashkenaz was in the area that Elhaik mentions. However, for a thousand years European Jews in Rome and Germany did not call themselves Ashkenazi. It was re-introduced about a thousand years ago without any demonstrated connection to ancient Ashkenaz- it was a 'poetic' attempt to connect the present with the past. The same thing happened to Sephardic Jews. Ancient Serafad was in the Near East rather than Spain.

Comment

I wish I could see Elhaik's research paper, but it apparently fails to note that for the past thousand years, 'Ashkenazi' has been used figuratively rather than literally. It is true that the original Ashkenaz was in the area that Elhaik mentions. However, for a thousand years European Jews in Rome and Germany did not call themselves Ashkenazi. It was re-introduced about a thousand years ago without any demonstrated connection to ancient Ashkenaz- it was a 'poetic' attempt to connect the present with the past. The same thing happened to Sephardic Jews. Ancient Serafad was in the Near East rather than Spain.

Finally, does Elhaik's Admixture program have a distinct Levantine reference group. Some programs such as My Origins fail to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus).
Other programs such as Eurogenes and DNA Land have distinct Levantine components which can separate the Levant from West Asia. On the latter programs, Jews have a minor West Asia component, but the Levantine component is much larger.

At MO , the geographic AIMs for Ashkenazis are not idenified. However some with Sephardic ancestry have an Asia Minor component since there is no Levantine component.

Comment

I knew, that Dr. Elhaik was critizised from a lot of scientists before, for example, with his Khazar DNA theory possibly relating to the theories of to S. Sand. Therefor I posted the link without commentary just for information.

Perhaps I should have posted the link in the "recreation corner" ;-), but I wanted to stay neutral, as I am always curious towards new theories (except conspiracy stuff). And I think, that eager Elhaik does not belong to this conspiracy corner, as long as I am able to understand all that I´ve read from him... Besides my English is not my mother tongue and I am not a professional DNA scientist ;-)

We will not know, what new, suprising or strange results science will offer us in the next years... and I do not have sufficient insight to understand some motivations in the battle of scientists.

Comment

Finally, does Elhaik's Admixture program have a distinct Levantine reference group. Some programs such as My Origins fail to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus).
Other programs such as Eurogenes and DNA Land have distinct Levantine components which can separate the Levant from West Asia. On the latter programs, Jews have a minor West Asia component, but the Levantine component is much larger.

At MO , the geographic AIMs for Ashkenazis are not idenified. However some with Sephardic ancestry have an Asia Minor component since there is no Levantine component.

I too have reservations about Elhaik's work. It's fairly clear that his theory about Khazar origin for Jewish people is not well-regarded by his fellow scientists. I get the impression that he has some sort of agenda that drives his work.

However, I have to comment on your statement above about myOrigins and its supposed inability to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia. There are three sub-categories under Middle Eastern in myOrigins - Asia Minor, Eastern Middle East and North Africa. It seems to me that Asia Minor corresponds to West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus) and Eastern Middle East roughly corresponds to the Levant.

Why don't you think those sub-categories are providing the necessary ability to drill down meaningfully into Middle Eastern admixture?

Comment

I too have reservations about Elhaik's work. It's fairly clear that his theory about Khazar origin for Jewish people is not well-regarded by his fellow scientists. I get the impression that he has some sort of agenda that drives his work.

However, I have to comment on your statement above about myOrigins and its supposed inability to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia. There are three sub-categories under Middle Eastern in myOrigins - Asia Minor, Eastern Middle East and North Africa. It seems to me that Asia Minor corresponds to West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus) and Eastern Middle East roughly corresponds to the Levant.

Why don't you think those sub-categories are providing the necessary ability to drill down meaningfully into Middle Eastern admixture?

I think the categories are quite helpful. They are just not helpful for Jews who want to know about Asian origins.(The reference groups for EME are from Eastern Arabia and Iraq, not the Levant) MO does not even indicate if Ashkenazis have any Asian origins at all.

Gee, Elhaik's admixture program does not contain a Levantine component. The study is not relevant to Elhaik's theory. In the past, the program was challenged for unsupported claims.

Agenda? If most modern Jews do not have a historical claim to Israel...

Comment

I think the categories are quite helpful. They are just not helpful for Jews who want to know about Asian origins.(The reference groups for EME are from Eastern Arabia and Iraq, not the Levant) MO does not even indicate if Ashkenazis have any Asian origins at all.

Gee, Elhaik's admixture program does not contain a Levantine component. The study is not relevant to Elhaik's theory. In the past, the program was challenged for unsupported claims.

Agenda? If most modern Jews do not have a historical claim to Israel...

I meant that Elhaik was challenged for claiming that the program's admixture profile could predict where a person lived.

If ELhaik wanted to demonstrate that Jews are from Turkey, why didn't he just use an admixture program with a Levantine component. I would be willing to accept his theory if modern Jews had a primary component in West Asia rather than the Levant.

Comment

Here is the study to the article. As I said, I do not really have the insight into deep DNA science, I am happy to learn from your discussion about it.

Petra, thanks for the reference. The data appear to show that AJs are indeed closer to Turks than Lebanese. However, my objection remains. Elhaik's admixture program contains a Mediterranean region rather than a Levantine region----it is not precise enough to portray differences within the Mediterranean. . The Mediterranean region covers both Europe and Asia. However, despite my comments, I am open to Elhaik's theory. ( I was open to the Khazar theory until the data came in. I share the controversial position that most Ashkenazi MTdna lines came from Europe rather than the Levant)

Comment

Petra, thanks for the reference. The data appear to show that AJs are indeed closer to Turks than Lebanese. However, my objection remains. Elhaik's admixture program contains a Mediterranean region rather than a Levantine region----it is not precise enough to portray differences within the Mediterranean. . The Mediterranean region covers both Europe and Asia. However, despite my comments, I am open to Elhaik's theory. ( I was open to the Khazar theory until the data came in. I share the controversial position that most Ashkenazi MTdna lines came from Europe rather than the Levant)

Still concerned about Elhaik's motivation. The 'Israelites' population is limited to Palestinians (Muslims?) and Bedouins--two groups that were affected by migration from Arabia. As with his first study, it looks too much like a self fulfilling prophecy. However, as mentioned above, I will accept the findings if the study includes the Levantine region.

Comment

Still concerned about Elhaik's motivation. The 'Israelites' population is limited to Palestinians (Muslims?) and Bedouins--two groups that were affected by migration from Arabia. As with his first study, it looks too much like a self fulfilling prophecy. However, as mentioned above, I will accept the findings if the study includes the Levantine region.

Beyond my pay grade, but critics such as Dienekes and Mark Thomas have questioned the accuracy of Elhaik's GPS (Admixture program) strategy with regard to making postdictions about where one lived 1000 years ago.

Comment

abstract below; This seems to have more to do with origins of Yiddish than anything. Elhaik seems to have an agenda, but I don't how to evaluate this paper.
Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Primeval Villages in the Ancient Iranian Lands of Ashkenaz
Ranajit Das1,2, Paul Wexler3, Mehdi Pirooznia4 and Eran Elhaik1,*
+ Author Affiliations

The Yiddish language is over 1,000 years old and incorporates German, Slavic, and Hebrew elements. The prevalent view claims Yiddish has a German origin, whereas the opposing view posits a Slavic origin with strong Iranian and weak Turkic substrata. One of the major difficulties in deciding between these hypotheses is the unknown geographical origin of Yiddish speaking Ashkenazic Jews (AJs). An analysis of 393 Ashkenazic, Iranian, and mountain Jews and over 600 non-Jewish genomes demonstrated that Greeks, Romans, Iranians, and Turks exhibit the highest genetic similarity with AJs. The Geographic Population Structure analysis localized most AJs along major primeval trade routes in northeastern Turkey adjacent to primeval villages with names that may be derived from “Ashkenaz.” Iranian and mountain Jews were localized along trade routes on the Turkey’s eastern border. Loss of maternal haplogroups was evident in non-Yiddish speaking AJs. Our results suggest that AJs originated from a Slavo-Iranian confederation, which the Jews call “Ashkenazic” (i.e., “Scythian”), though these Jews probably spoke Persian and/or Ossete. This is compatible with linguistic evidence suggesting that Yiddish is a Slavic language created by Irano-Turko-Slavic Jewish merchants along the Silk Roads as a cryptic trade language, spoken only by its originators to gain an advantage in trade. Later, in the 9th century, Yiddish underwent relexification by adopting a new vocabulary that consists of a minority of German and Hebrew and a majority of newly coined Germanoid and Hebroid elements that replaced most of the original Eastern Slavic and Sorbian vocabularies, while keeping the original grammars intact.

Comment

abstract below; This seems to have more to do with origins of Yiddish than anything. Elhaik seems to have an agenda, but I don't how to evaluate this paper.
Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Primeval Villages in the Ancient Iranian Lands of Ashkenaz
Ranajit Das1,2, Paul Wexler3, Mehdi Pirooznia4 and Eran Elhaik1,*
+ Author Affiliations

The Yiddish language is over 1,000 years old and incorporates German, Slavic, and Hebrew elements. The prevalent view claims Yiddish has a German origin, whereas the opposing view posits a Slavic origin with strong Iranian and weak Turkic substrata. One of the major difficulties in deciding between these hypotheses is the unknown geographical origin of Yiddish speaking Ashkenazic Jews (AJs). An analysis of 393 Ashkenazic, Iranian, and mountain Jews and over 600 non-Jewish genomes demonstrated that Greeks, Romans, Iranians, and Turks exhibit the highest genetic similarity with AJs. The Geographic Population Structure analysis localized most AJs along major primeval trade routes in northeastern Turkey adjacent to primeval villages with names that may be derived from “Ashkenaz.” Iranian and mountain Jews were localized along trade routes on the Turkey’s eastern border. Loss of maternal haplogroups was evident in non-Yiddish speaking AJs. Our results suggest that AJs originated from a Slavo-Iranian confederation, which the Jews call “Ashkenazic” (i.e., “Scythian”), though these Jews probably spoke Persian and/or Ossete. This is compatible with linguistic evidence suggesting that Yiddish is a Slavic language created by Irano-Turko-Slavic Jewish merchants along the Silk Roads as a cryptic trade language, spoken only by its originators to gain an advantage in trade. Later, in the 9th century, Yiddish underwent relexification by adopting a new vocabulary that consists of a minority of German and Hebrew and a majority of newly coined Germanoid and Hebroid elements that replaced most of the original Eastern Slavic and Sorbian vocabularies, while keeping the original grammars intact.

The linguistic theory is interesting. Some have suggested a Sorbian influence particularly in regard to grammar. However the Sorbs are Western rather than Eastern Slavs. The issue is not closed.

My main complaint is that the research design made it logically impossible to demonstrate that Jews have Levantine origins. All the studies that have a Levantine geographic component show that Jews have Levantine origins.
.

We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.

By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.